Donald Trump Indicted on 7 Counts

[Stavros]

Not an expert on this, but Mark Meadows wants his trial moved to a Federal Court because he claims he was acting in his capacity as a Federal official. I am not sure but what puzzles me, is that if the White House has lawyers who are on the Federal payroll, why would the Chief of Staff allow a group of other lawyers to both enter the Oval Office, and advise the President? On the Georgia call there was a woman named Cleta Mitchell who clearly did not know Georgia election law, and also there are people such as Giuliani, Sidney Powell and John Eastman, the latter two coming from some obscurity -was it Steve Bannon or Roger Stone who recommended them to Trump? And who told them? But crucially, as none of them were Federal officials, and Meadows knew this, his own behaviour suggests that in participating with them in the call, he stepped outside of his Federal responsibility to become part of the conspiracy to change an election result, which no President or member of his staff has the legal right to do.

I might be wrong, or does the law allow a President to interfere in State elections? And what is the role of the Chief of Staff in this, to advise, or just be an obedient servant? If Trump told Meadows to throw a cat out of the window, would he do so without question?

Mark Meadows testifies in bid to move Georgia election case to federal court | Mark Meadows | The Guardian

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Not an expert on this, but Mark Meadows wants his trial moved to a Federal Court because he claims he was acting in his capacity as a Federal official. I am not sure but what puzzles me, is that if the White House has lawyers who are on the Federal payroll, why would the Chief of Staff allow a group of other lawyers to both enter the Oval Office, and advise the President? On the Georgia call there was a woman named Cleta Mitchell who clearly did not know Georgia election law, and also there are people such as Giuliani, Sidney Powell and John Eastman, the latter two coming from some obscurity -was it Steve Bannon or Roger Stone who recommended them to Trump? And who told them? But crucially, as none of them were Federal officials, and Meadows knew this, his own behaviour suggests that in participating with them in the call, he stepped outside of his Federal responsibility to become part of the conspiracy to change an election result, which no President or member of his staff has the legal right to do.

I might be wrong, or does the law allow a President to interfere in State elections? And what is the role of the Chief of Staff in this, to advise, or just be an obedient servant? If Trump told Meadows to throw a cat out of the window, would he do so without question?

Mark Meadows testifies in bid to move Georgia election case to federal court | Mark Meadows | The Guardian

No the law doesn't allow a sitting president to interfere in state elections,a chief of staff's job is responsible for directing,managing and overseeing all policy development,daily operations and staff activities for the president. Mark Meadows would do without question.

[Mirgofino]

Yes. The paradox of losing the plot by following one.

[Stavros]

I know it is a different case from the one in the OP, but there is an intriguing aspect to the case in New York concerning the claim Trump made fraudulent claims about the value of his properties there. Earlier this year he told the Court-

"Interrogated about the truthfulness of financial statements he gave to banks, Trump repeatedly insisted that, legally speaking, it didn't matter whether they were accurate or not.“I have a clause in there that says, ‘Don’t believe the statement. Go out and do your own work.’ This statement is ‘worthless.’ It means nothing,” Trump testified. Given the disclaimer, he said, “you’re supposed to pay no credence to what we say whatsoever.”"
-He then added
""Do you know the banks were fully paid? Do you know the banks made a lot of money?" Trump testified. "Do you know I don’t believe I ever got even a default notice, and even during COVID, the banks were all paid? And yet you’re suing on behalf of banks, I guess. It’s crazy. The whole case is crazy.”"
Trump dismissive as New York attorney general accuses him of inflating his net worth by $2 billion (yahoo.com)

But if this means with regard to the Banks that 'they knew the details were crap but they calculated they could all make money from it', should this bring all those involved into a criminal investigation by the IRS? After all, the key to all this is that property values were high when a loan was sought, and low when it came to paying taxes -if Trump is saying the truth is not important, and nobody else thought so too, then he cannot be the only person on trial -?? It is rather like the argument that the auditors who sign off on accounts that are wrong are not so much incompetent, as 'in on the act'. It implicates everyone involved, not just Trump.

But, at a basic level, what does it say of a 'businessman' who knowingly tells lies to obtain money and says 'it's up to you to prove it'? Is there no point in any of these transactions and the legal process when the truth actually has power?

[filghy2]

"Interrogated about the truthfulness of financial statements he gave to banks, Trump repeatedly insisted that, legally speaking, it didn't matter whether they were accurate or not.“I have a clause in there that says, ‘Don’t believe the statement. Go out and do your own work.’ This statement is ‘worthless.’ It means nothing,” Trump testified. Given the disclaimer, he said, “you’re supposed to pay no credence to what we say whatsoever.”"

That is just bizarre. If the lenders are supposed to know the valuation was false then what was the point of it? Obviously he did it because he thought it would be to his advantage.

I'm pretty sure that you are not legally protected from liability for false statements just because there is a disclaimer in the fine print somewhere.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Related:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ol-1234815512/

[Stavros]

That is just bizarre. If the lenders are supposed to know the valuation was false then what was the point of it? Obviously he did it because he thought it would be to his advantage.

I'm pretty sure that you are not legally protected from liability for false statements just because there is a disclaimer in the fine print somewhere.

I understand your argument, but is there a due diligence obligation on lenders. Rather than just take Trump's valuation as stated, make their own investigation? It doesn't seem credible that anyone familiar with real estate prices in Manhattan would believe some of Trump's figures. When Deutsche Bank loaned Trump a billion dollars, did they work out if he could pay it back, and how? It may be that what Trump has exploited foe years, mostly through clever lawyers, is the legal fine print but also the 'I dare you' tactic of making claims he knows lenders won't bother to check, or calculate that either way they will get their money back. I suppose the irony is that while his lenders may have got their money back, he is notorious for not paying smaller bills to people who work for him, like his 'personal lawyers'.

And, ultimately, did he break the law? We still don't know what a Court may decide.

[filghy2]

Deutsche Bank has a long history of involvement in dubious practices (eg Russian money-laundering). I would not be surprised if there were questionable motives on their side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank

[Stavros]

The Mug shot, sold by a Mug

"Legal experts have warned that the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office owns the copyright for the image and so could sue Mr Trump for using it on t-shirts and other merchandise."
Trump gloats about leading DeSantis in polls as mug shot merch could land him in legal hot water: Live updates (yahoo.com)

So what are they waiting for?

[Fitzcarraldo]

The Mug shot, sold by a Mug

"Legal experts have warned that the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office owns the copyright for the image and so could sue Mr Trump for using it on t-shirts and other merchandise."
Trump gloats about leading DeSantis in polls as mug shot merch could land him in legal hot water: Live updates (yahoo.com)

So what are they waiting for?

The criminal prosecution is a higher priority than filing a lawsuit.